1 Reconstructing Ireland’s marine fisheries catches: 1950-2010
2
3 Dana D. Miller*1 and Dirk Zeller2 4 5 1Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 6 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 7 8 2Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, 9 Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 10 11 *To whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel: +1 604 341 6339. E-mail: 12 [email protected]
s 13 t n i 14 r
P 15 ABSTRACT The wasteful practice of discarding catch is one of the major problems e r
P 16 associated with European fisheries. Despite this, estimates of discarded catch are not included
17 in the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ database (1905 to present) collected and maintained by the
18 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Furthermore, removals through
19 recreational sea angling and estimates of other forms of unreported landings are often also
20 missing from this dataset. Here, total discarded catch and unreported landings made by Irish
21 commercial fishing vessels, and the total amount of fish caught and retained through Irish sea
22 angling activities within the Northeast Atlantic from 1950 to 2010 have been estimated. Total
23 reconstructed catches were 19.3% and 20.9% higher than the officially recorded total
24 landings as reported by ICES from the Northeast Atlantic, and those estimated as being from
25 within the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), respectively. Discarded catch was
26 proportionately the largest component of the reconstruction, representing 12.7% of the total
27 catch within the Irish EEZ. The Irish catch reconstruction presented here is by no means
28 assumed to represent the complete record of total removals and the authors encourage further
29 efforts to improve upon this attempt. However, considering the current absence of estimated
30 values for discarded catch, recreational removals and other unreported landings from 1 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
31 officially and publically reported data, we feel that our reconstruction provides an improved
32 baseline estimate of more accurate total Irish marine fisheries catch that has not previously
33 been made publically available.
34
35 Keywords: Irish fisheries, Discarding, IUU fishing, Recreational catches
36 s t n i r P e r P
2 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
37 INTRODUCTION
38
39 The waters surrounding Ireland are diverse and productive, containing important spawning
40 grounds and nursery areas for many different species of fish (Marine Institute, 2009). For
41 centuries, these waters have supported fisheries targeted by Irish and other European fishing
42 fleets including those from Spain, France, Belgium and the UK (McArthur, 1959; de Courcy
43 Ireland, 1981; Molloy, 2004). Historically, the most important species contributing to total
44 marine fish landings by weight have been pelagic species such as Atlantic mackerel (Scomber s t n 45 scombrus), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) and more recently, Atlantic horse mackerel i r
P 46 (Trachurus trachurus) and blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou). Nephrops (Nephrops e r 47 norvegicus) and demersal species such as whiting (Merlangius merlangus), Atlantic cod P
48 (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and European plaice (Pleuronectes
49 platessa) have also notably contributed to total marine fisheries landings, while shellfish such
50 as European lobster (Homarus gammarus) and crab (Cancer spp.) have been of particular
51 significance to the inshore fisheries sector, serving as an important resource base for Irish
52 coastal communities (Marine Institute, 2009; Marine Institute, 2011a; ICES, 2011).
53 Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is located within FAO Fishing Area 27
54 (Figure 1). The waters of the Northeast Atlantic have been segregated into a series of
55 divisions and sub-divisions, used for geo-referencing fisheries management areas by the
56 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). ICES provides scientific advice
57 in relation to fisheries management both to the Irish government and to the European
58 Commission (EC). The Irish EEZ is contained entirely within ICES Sub-areas VI and VII,
59 however ICES Sub-areas VI and VII extend beyond the Irish EEZ, into the high seas or the
60 EEZs of neighbouring countries.
61 3 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1 s t n i r P e r P
62
63 Figure 1 The Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the ICES Divisions around the Irish 64 Coast. Image generated by the Sea Around Us Project, courtesy of Christopher Hoornaert. 65 66 67 Fish caught within all EU EEZs are managed as a common resource, shared between
68 the Member States that have commercial interests in these stocks (EC, 2009a). The EU’s
69 Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) governs European fisheries within all Member State EEZs
70 through Total Allowable Catches (TACs), which are partitioned into stock quotas among
71 countries, and a complex system of technical measures including minimum landing sizes,
4 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
72 area closures and gear restrictions (EC, 2009a). The CFP has been criticised for failing to
73 achieve social, economic or environmental sustainability within the European fishing
74 industry since its establishment in 1983 (EC, 2009b; Khalilian et al., 2010; EC, 2011). The
75 many problems associated with the CFP have included high levels of discarding and high-
76 grading (Borges et al., 2005; Marine Institute, 2011b), failure to follow scientific advice and
77 fleet overcapacity that has been maintained through government subsidies (EC, 2009b;
78 Khalilian et al., 2010; EC, 2011; Österblom et al., 2011).
79 Presently, of the commercial fish stocks where Ireland has a share of the TAC, 13 out s t n 80 of 38 (i.e., 34%) for which sufficient scientific data exist to estimate stock status, are being i r
P 81 overfished relative to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) (Marine Institute, 2012). In e r 82 addition, a number of stocks which were once the main focus of important targeted fisheries P
83 are now considered depleted or collapsed (Marine Institute, 2009; Marine Institute, 2012).
84 For 30 out of 59 stocks (i.e., 50.8%), there is insufficient scientific data for estimating stock
85 status relative to MSY and this is a major factor contributing to the uncertainty of scientific
86 advice (Marine Institute, 2012). Limited data on discards and unreported landings have also
87 been responsible for the uncertainty of stock assessments (Marine Institute, 2012). ICES
88 scientists have acknowledged that for a number of stocks, management by TAC is
89 inappropriate because only the landings are controlled, and these quantities are not
90 representative of total catches (Marine Institute, 2012).
91 ICES provides scientific advice on fisheries stocks within the Northeast Atlantic
92 based on data submitted to ICES as part of the EU’s Data Collection Framework (DCF) and
93 under a number of international monitoring programmes (ICES, 2012). Estimates of
94 discarded and unreported catch (recorded as ‘unallocated’) for a limited number of stocks
95 have been considered in recent years by ICES scientists when producing and issuing
96 scientific advice. When provided in publically accessible reports, however, these data are 5 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
97 only represented by one annual value for each stock, without any information given on which
98 countries provided these values, and thus for which fishing fleets the estimated discarding or
99 unreported catch rates apply. Furthermore, the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ database accessible
100 online and maintained by ICES, only contains nationally reported annual quantities of
101 commercially landed fish. Records contained within this dataset do not include annual
102 estimates of discarded, recreational and other unreported catches.
103 Irish fisheries landing statistics are currently reported to ICES by the Irish Sea
104 Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA). Included within these statistics are the officially s t n 105 recorded landings made by Irish commercial fishing vessels measuring ten meters or more, i r
P 106 reported by ICES sub-area and for the most part to species level. Vessels measuring less than e r 107 ten meters are not required to carry logbooks and landings that are made by these vessels are P
108 not directly monitored or reported but instead are estimated through the examination of sales
109 notes, which are required for all first point of sale transactions where over ten kilograms of
110 fish are sold (INTERREG, 2001; Marine Institute, 2007; C. O Shea, pers. comm., SFPA).
111 Long-term datasets of fisheries landings can provide some insights into temporal
112 trends in marine resource use (e.g., Pooley, 1993; Pauly et al., 1998; Pinnegar et al., 2003;
113 Miller et al., 2012). However, fisheries ‘landings’ typically do not represent total fisheries
114 ‘catches’ and thus trends in landings data do not necessarily provide an accurate indication of
115 the potential ecological impacts of fishing activities in a particular marine area (Zeller et al.,
116 2009). In addition, stock-specific landings statistics may not provide adequate information for
117 the purposes of fisheries stock assessment (Marine Institute, 2011a). Long-term fisheries
118 ‘catch’ datasets which incorporate reconstructed estimates of all fisheries removals can
119 provide opportunities for improved interpretations of fisheries trends and cumulative
120 potential impacts that fishing activities may be having on particular stocks or ecosystems
121 (Zeller et al., 2007; Zeller et al., 2011). Caution should be practiced in interpreting trends 6 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
122 from reconstructed ‘catch’ records however, as they represent estimated catch quantities.
123 Thus, while more statistically ‘accurate’ (i.e., closer to a true, unknown value), these
124 estimates may be less statistically ‘precise’ than reported ‘landings’ data alone.
125 In this study, total discarded, recreational and other unreported catch made through
126 Irish fishing activities within the Northeast Atlantic from 1950 to 2010 have been estimated
127 through a process of extrapolation and interpolation between known and approximated data
128 anchor points (Pauly, 1998; Zeller et al., 2007; Zeller et al., 2011). In addition, adjustments
129 have been made to the existing ICES dataset, informed by national government data sources s t n 130 (Zeller et al., 2011). The objective of this study was to create, for the first time, a more i r
P 131 comprehensive record of all Irish marine fisheries removals from 1950 to 2010. Due to e r 132 limitations in the availability of data, however, the process of creating this reconstructed P
133 dataset has required informed assumptions and interpretations. Thus, the authors
134 acknowledge that this reconstruction represents a first attempt and encourage others to
135 improving upon the present data.
136
137
138 MATERIALS & METHODS
139
140 Available through ICES are a range of different datasets containing information relevant to
141 fisheries management within the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. The ‘Official Catch Statistics’
142 database maintained by ICES contains landings reported by species and ICES fishing area.
143 ICES also maintains publically accessible records relating to stock assessment results,
144 presenting data on a much more limited number of commercially important species. Within
145 these records, for a limited number of stocks, estimated quantities of discarded or
146 ‘unallocated’ catch are provided. However, these records are only available for a few years 7 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
147 and do not specify which countries are contributing to the discarded or unreported catch. For
148 the purpose of this reconstruction, we have made use of both sources of ICES data, the latter
149 of which has been obtained through the Irish Marine Institute, contained within tables
150 provided in their annual ‘Stockbook’ fisheries advice publication, for stocks relevant to Irish
151 marine waters (Marine Institute, 2011a). We will refer to these data as being from the ‘ICES
152 stock assessment results database’ (Zeller et al., 2011). For this reconstruction, data obtained
153 from the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ database available through ICES have been used as the
154 ‘reported data baseline’ (since these are the data officially reported to the global community s t n 155 via FAO) onto which estimates for identified missing components of total anthropogenic i r
P 156 removals have been added (Zeller et al., 2011). An exhaustive search for data and reference e r 157 materials relating to fishing, fisheries and fish stocks in Ireland was completed as part of this P
158 reconstruction. Uniquely different approaches were used in the completion of each step of
159 this process and have been outlined within the following sections.
160
161 Adjustments to existing ICES landings statistics
162 Landings made by Irish vessels for the years 1950 to 2010 were extracted from the ‘Official
163 Catch Statistics’ database, obtained online at www.ices.dk/fish/CATChSTATISTICS.asp. In
164 an attempt to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and consistency of the landings reported
165 within this dataset, additional datasets were obtained through various national sources, and
166 comparisons were made between the quantity of landings recorded, taking into consideration
167 the reporting units and categories used.
168
169 Live weight conversions
170 A series of hard-copy annual government reports entitled the ‘Sea and Inland Fisheries
171 Reports’ were obtained for the years 1950 to 1984. These reports contained records of the 8 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
172 landed weight of fish caught by Irish vessels, landed at Irish ports. As these reports were
173 produced by the various government agencies which have been responsible for fisheries over
174 the past fifty years, the records submitted annually to ICES also likely originated, or were
175 processed to some degree from these same agencies. When this dataset was compared to only
176 the landings made by Irish vessels fishing in Sub-areas VI and VII extracted from the
177 ‘Official Catch Statistics’ dataset from ICES, for the years 1950 to 1960, the data matched
178 well, though from 1961 onwards, quantities recorded for demersal species differed.
179 ICES stated that the data contained within the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ database are s t n 180 reported in ‘live weights’ as opposed to ‘landed weights’, which represents processed product i r
P 181 weight (e.g., gutted, beheaded, filleted; FAO, 2012). In reporting live weights, landed weights e r 182 are converted back to live weights using species-specific conversion factors. P
183 After careful consideration of the differences observed between the two datasets
184 compared, we concluded that these differences were likely due to a reporting error on behalf
185 of ICES. It appeared as though the quantities recorded from 1950 to 1960 were in fact
186 recorded as landed weight. To correct this data inconsistency, we obtained live weight
187 conversion factors from the Irish Marine Institute (M. Clarke, pers. comm., Marine Institute)
188 and converted Irish landing values within the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ for 1950 to 1960
189 from landed weight to live weight.
190
191 Inshore catches
192 Over 80% of Ireland’s fishing fleet operates within territorial inshore waters, generally not
193 more than 12 miles off Ireland’s coast. This fleet is mainly comprised of vessels less than 12
194 meters in length which largely rely on local stocks of shellfish including crab, European
195 lobster, shrimp (Palaemonidae spp.), great Atlantic scallop (Pecten maximus), whelk
196 (Buccinum undatum) and common edible cockle (Cerastoderma edule) (Marine Institute, 9 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
197 2007). Vessels under ten meters in length are not required to keep fishing logbooks, and as
198 recently as 2007, a large fraction of the vessels working in the inshore sector were not
199 properly licensed or registered (Connolly et al., 2001; Marine Institute, 2007). Landings made
200 by the inshore sector, which are ultimately reported to ICES, are currently estimated
201 primarily through the examination of sales notes which are required for all transactions
202 involving the sale of over ten kilograms of fish or shellfish (Marine Institute, 2007; C. O
203 Shea, pers. comm., SFPA). This system of data collection has been criticised for not
204 providing a reliable long-term inshore fisheries dataset (Connolly et al., 2001; Marine s t n 205 Institute, 2007; O. Tully, pers. comm., Marine Institute). i r
P 206 In an attempt to improve the accuracy of the shellfish landings data currently recorded e r 207 within the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ database, alternative national data sources which were P
208 deemed more reliable than existing ICES records were consulted, where available. Data from
209 these sources, listed in Table 1, were used to replace existing data within the baseline ICES
210 dataset, or to guide interpolations and/or assumptions, which resulted in positive or negative
211 catch data adjustments.
212
Table 1 Data sources for inshore catch data adjustments.
Time period of Common name Scientific name Data source replacement Common edible cockle Cerastoderma edule 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Deep-sea red crab Chaceon affinis 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Edible crab Cancer pagurus 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
European lobster Homarus gammarus 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Great Atlantic scallop Pecten maximus 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Green crab Carcinus maenas 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Native oyster Ostrea edulis 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c) 61% higher than ICES data, adjusted first by Marine Periwinkle Littorina littorea 1950-1991 Institute (2011c), assumptions based on Cummins et al. (2002). 51% higher than ICES data, adjusted first by Marine Institute (2011c), assumption consistent with Periwinkle Littorina littorea 1991-2010 percentage increase applied in 2000 based on Cummins et al. (2002).
10 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
Periwinkle Littorina littorea 2000 Cummins et al. (2002)
Periwinkle Littorina littorea 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Razor clam Ensis spp. 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Shrimp Palaemon serratus 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Spinous spider crab Maja squinado 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Spiny lobster Palinurus elephas 1950-2001 O. Tully (pers. comm., Marine Institute) Linear interpolation between data provided by O. Spiny lobster Palinurus elephas 2002-2003 Tully (pers. comm., Marine Institute) and Marine Institute (2011c). Spiny lobster Palinurus elephas 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Surf clam Spisula solidissima 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Velvet crab Necora puber 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c)
Venus clam Venerida spp. 2005-2006 Marine Institute (2011c) s t Whelk Buccinum undatum 1965-1986 Fahy et al. (2004) n i Whelk Buccinum undatum 1995-2003 Fahy et al. (2004) r Whelk Buccinum undatum 2004-2010 Marine Institute (2011c) P
e 213 r
P 214
215 Assignment of ICES reported landings to the Irish EEZ
216 Although the ICES ‘Official Catch Statistics’ dataset only contains reported fisheries
217 ‘landings’, not ‘catches’, landings within this dataset have been recorded according to the
218 ICES fishing areas where they were caught rather than the fishing ports where they were
219 landed. Recorded areas include all locations within the Northeast Atlantic where Irish fishing
220 vessels have been reported catching fish, including those outside ICES Sub-areas VI and VII,
221 the areas which overlap with Ireland’s EEZ (Figure 1). For the purposes of this reconstruction
222 and to allow for country-specific global comparisons, it was necessary to separate landings
223 made by Irish vessels within the Northeast Atlantic into two categories; landings made by
224 Irish vessels within the Irish EEZ and landings made by Irish vessels outside the Irish EEZ.
225 Maps that visually displayed an approximate distribution of the geographic location of
226 landings by Irish vessels less than 15 meters in length over the period 2006 to 2008 were
227 obtained from the Marine Institute’s ‘Atlas of the Commercial Fisheries around Ireland’
228 (Figures 2.2.1-2.2.4 in Marine Institute, 2009). These maps were created by linking data from 11 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
229 the Irish Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) to daily logbook recordings of landings for the
230 following species: Atlantic cod, Atlantic herring, Atlantic horse mackerel, Atlantic mackerel,
231 blue whiting, common sole (Solea solea), European hake (Merluccius merluccius), European
232 plaice, haddock, ling (Molva molva), megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis), monkfish
233 (Lophius spp.), nephrops, ray and skate (Batoidea), tuna (Thunnus spp.) and whiting.
234 These catch distribution maps were visually inspected, and for each ICES area
235 straddling the Irish EEZ boundary (Sub-areas VIa-b; VIIa; VIIc; and VIIg-k, Figure 1), an
236 estimate was made of the proportion of the landings of each species originating from within s t n 237 and outside the EEZ (Supplementary Table 1). For lCES Sub-area VIIb, which is completely i r
P 238 within the Irish EEZ, 100% of landings were designated as being caught within the Irish e r 239 EEZ. P
240 The estimated proportions of landings originating from inside and outside the Irish
241 EEZ were applied to the entire time series dataset for each species that VMS maps were
242 available for. Proportional EEZ inclusion values were created for all other species recorded
243 within the ICES dataset based on assumptions of similarities in life history traits to species
244 with VMS data. Although some temporal changes in the spatial distribution of catches are
245 likely to have occurred, proportional EEZ inclusion values were assumed constant throughout
246 the entire time period as no other information was available for estimating the extent or
247 direction of possible changes.
248 Following this process of data separation, ICES Sub-areas where landings were
249 caught were retained within the modified data records and all data, regardless of EEZ
250 classification category, were considered within subsequent reconstruction steps. Thus, no
251 data were moved between statistical areas or sub-areas.
252
253
12 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
254 Unreported landings
255 Unlike data adjustments (modifications for increased accuracy) to official landings records,
256 unreported landings, as their name suggests, have not been accounted for in official landings
257 records. The components that we have included in this category are ‘unallocated’ landings
258 reported by ICES stock assessment reports, estimates of fish caught and retained through
259 recreational angling activities and landings of a basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) fishery
260 which had previously not been included in national landings records.
261 s t n
i 262 ICES unallocated catch r
P 263 Stock assessment reports prepared by ICES working groups for a number of stocks include a e r 264 category of landings labelled ‘unallocated’, but do not specify which countries have P
265 contributed to the landings recorded within this category, nor what specifically these values
266 represent and how they have been derived or estimated. Occasionally, values within this
267 category were negative, likely representing suspected over-reporting of landings.
268 ICES assessment report data relevant to fisheries within Irish waters are included in
269 the Irish Marine Institute’s annual ‘Stockbook’ fisheries advice publication (Marine Institute,
270 2011a). The proportion of the total ‘unallocated’ landings for each stock was allocated as
271 being caught by the Irish fleet according to the annual proportion of Ireland’s share of the
272 total reported landings for that stock, also calculated using values within these tables
273 originating from ICES stock assessment reports. Thus, we assumed proportionality between
274 reported landings and ‘unallocated’ catches. ‘Unallocated’ catches for the Irish fleet were
275 only estimated for the stocks for which ICES data were available (Table 2), and therefore, our
276 estimates of unreported catches in this category are likely a minimal estimate. These catches
277 were allocated within or outside the Irish EEZ according to the stock inclusion rates in
278 Supplementary Table 1. Lastly, estimates for most stocks were not extrapolated backwards in 13 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
279 time to cover years where data were not available as trends within the data were often
280 inconsistent, including estimates of both under-reporting and over-reporting. However, this
281 likely resulted in underestimation of total time series ‘unallocated’ catches, and hence our
282 data should be considered minimal estimates of this category.
283
Table 2 Stocks and time periods for which ICES ‘unallocated’ landings have been estimated for Irish fisheries.
ICES Common name Scientific name Time period Data source Sub-area Table 5.4.21.1 (Marine Institute Atlantic cod Gadus morhua Via 1987-2010 s 2011a) t Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIa 1987-1994 Table 5.4.1.1 (Marine Institute 2011a) n i
r Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIa 1995-2010 Table 5.4.1.2 (Marine Institute 2011a)
P Table 5.4.30.2 (Marine Institute Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIaN 1987-2010 2011a) e
r Table 5.4.17.2 (Marine Institute Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIaS, VIIb-c 1988-2010 2011a) P Table 5.4.15.2 (Marine Institute Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIaN 1987 & 1996 2011a) Table 5.4.16.2 (Marine Institute Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIaS, VIIg-k 1988-2010 2011a) Extrapolated backwards from 1997 applying 50% of 1997 ‘unallocated’ Atl. horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VI and VII 1950-1996 rate from Table 9.4.3.7 (Marine Institute 2011a) Atl. horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VI and VII 1997-2010 Table 9.4.3.7 (Marine Institute 2011a) Extrapolated backwards from 1988 applying 50% of 1988 ‘unallocated’ Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VI and VII 1950-1987 rate from Table 5.4.2.5 (Marine Institute 2011a) Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VI and VII 1988-2010 Table 9.4.2.5 (Marine Institute 2011a) Table 5.4.12.2 (Marine Institute Common sole Solea solea VIIa 1973-2010 2011a) Table 5.4.13.2 (Marine Institute Common sole Solea solea VIIf-g 1987-2010 2011a) European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIa 1987-1991 Table 5.4.7.1 (Marine Institute 2011a)
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIa 1992-2010 Table 5.4.7.2 (Marine Institute 2011a)
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIf-g 1983-2010 Table 5.4.8.2 (Marine Institute 2011a) Melanogrammus Table 5.4.23.1 (Marine Institute Haddock Via 1987-2010 aeglefinus 2011a) Melanogrammus Table 5.4.24.1 (Marine Institute Haddock VIb 1987-1991 aeglefinus 2011a) Melanogrammus Table 5.4.24.2 (Marine Institute Haddock VIb 1992-2010 aeglefinus 2011a) Melanogrammus Haddock VIIa 1987-2010 Table 5.4.3.1 (Marine Institute 2011a) aeglefinus Melanogrammus Haddock VIIb-k 1987-1992 Table 5.4.4.1 (Marine Institute 2011a) aeglefinus Melanogrammus Haddock VIIb-k 1993-2010 Table 5.4.4.2 (Marine Institute 2011a) aeglefinus Lepidorhombus Extrapolated backwards from 1990 Megrim Via 1950-1989 whiffiagonis applying 50% of 1990 ‘unallocated’ 14 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
rate from Table 5.4.38.2 (Marine Institute 2011a) Lepidorhombus Table 5.4.38.2 (Marine Institute Megrim Via 1990-2010 whiffiagonis 2011a) Extrapolated backwards from 1991 applying 50% of 1990 ‘unallocated’ Monkfish Lophius spp. Via 1950-1990 rate from Table 5.4.29.5 (Marine Institute 2011a) Table 5.4.29.5 (Marine Institute Monkfish Lophius spp. Via 1991-2010 2011a) Table 5.4.29.6 (Marine Institute Monkfish Lophius spp. VIb 1991-2010 2011a) Table 5.4.25.1 (Marine Institute Whiting Merlangius merlangus Via 1987-2010 2011a) Tables 5.4.5.1 and 5.4.5.2 (Marine Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIa 1987-2010 Institute 2011a) Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIe-k 1983-2010 Table 5.4.6.2 (Marine Institute 2011a) 284 s t 285 n i r 286 Retained recreational catch P e 287 In Ireland, there are no reporting requirements for recreational sea angling, either from boat r
P 288 or from shore. In addition, with exception to European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), there
289 are no regulations to limit catch quantities and no minimum landing size requirements. Sea
290 angling activities in Ireland are currently not monitored and to date, there have been no
291 attempts at estimating the total amount of fish caught through these activities. In order to
292 estimate the likely total amount of fish caught and retained from Irish waters through sea
293 angling for the years 1950 to 2010, a separate reconstruction process was applied to estimate
294 catches made through boat-based and shore-based angling activities.
295 Estimated values for the total numbers of day trips spent sea angling from boat or
296 shore in Ireland for the years 1996 and 2003 were obtained from a government funded
297 national survey of water-based leisure activities (Marine Institute, 2004). These values were
298 converted into per capita rates using Irish population data (CSO, 2012), and rates for the
299 years 1997 to 2002 were estimated through linear interpolation, assuming a constant
300 decreasing (boat days) and increasing (shore days) trend during this time period. The annual
301 numbers of day trips spent sea angling from boat and shore for this time period were then
15 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
302 calculated by multiplying the rates for each year by the annual Irish population size (CSO,
303 2012). The estimated total numbers of day trips spent sea angling from boat and shore were
304 extrapolated forward and backwards through applying the per capita day trips rates from
305 1996 and 2003, respectively to annual Irish population size data (CSO, 2012). To account for
306 technological advances within the last half of the 20th century that have likely led to
307 improved accessibility of vessels for recreational use, we have assumed that the annual per
308 capita rates for days angling from boats have likely increased and the annual per capita rates
309 for days angling from the shore have likely decreased. As such, prior to 1996, the per capita s t n 310 day trip rates were multiplied by a factor of 0.5 in 1950, extrapolated to 1 in 1996 for angling i r
P 311 from boats, and by a factor of 2 in 1950, extrapolated to 1 in 1996 for angling from the shore. e r 312 P
313 Boat-based angling activities
314 The quantity and diversity of fish caught by boat anglers per year was determined through
315 multiplying the estimated annual effort (boat day trips) by estimated average species-specific
316 weights of fish caught per boat angler per day fishing. These latter values were derived from
317 deep sea angling charter boat logbook data from 1978 to 2002, documented within an annual
318 report published by the Central Fisheries Board (CFB) (now Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI))
319 (W. Roche, pers. comm., IFI). Species-specific catch rate data (in fish numbers) was
320 available for Atlantic cod, ling, saithe (Pollachius virens), white pollack (Pollachius
321 pollachius), conger eel (Conger conger), greater spotted dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and
322 lesser spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula). We decided to omit conger eel and
323 elasmobranch data from this reconstruction as anecdotal evidence (W. Roche, pers. comm.,
324 IFI; A. Hayden, pers. comm., www.anirishanglersworld.com) suggested they are generally
325 not and never have been retained by anglers in large enough quantities to warrant inclusion in
326 retained catch records. 16 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
327 Average catch rates from the first three years (1978-1980) and from the last three
328 years (2000-2002) of this dataset were applied backwards and forwards, respectively, to each
329 of the remaining years of the dataset not covered by the deep sea angling charter logbook
330 records. The total estimated numbers caught of each species were then multiplied by an
331 estimated ‘typical’ weight of fish, which was conservatively set at 0.25 of the species’
332 specimen weight, as set by the Irish Specimen Fish Committee (ISFC, 2012) to obtain
333 estimated ‘typical’ species-specific daily catch weights for the year 1950. The specimen
334 weights applied here are ‘trophy weights’, used by the angling community in Ireland as a s t n 335 threshold measurement for exceptionally large fish that warrant recognition (CSO, 2012). i r
P 336 Prior to their application as multiplication factors throughout the dataset, these ‘typical’ fish e r 337 weights were extrapolated forwards, declining by 50% for all species from 1950-2010. This P
338 conservative estimated trend was applied to account for the decreasing sizes of fish caught
339 over this time period, based on estimates of 50-75% size reductions reported in the North Sea
340 by Jennings (2002). Calculated estimated catch rates by weight were then reduced by 50% for
341 all years, assuming that typical catch rates for all angling activities from boats are not as high
342 as those for angling activities from chartered deep sea angling vessels.
343
344 Shore-based angling activities
345 The quantity of fish caught by shore anglers each year was determined through first assuming
346 that occasionally, due to poor luck and inconsistencies in skill, shore anglers have fishing
347 days where they are unsuccessful in catching anything. Thus, to conservatively account for
348 this, we assumed that on 50% of the estimated days spent angling from the shore, zero fish
349 were caught. For the remaining days, in the absence of any other sources of data, the
350 estimated total daily catch rate by weight for all species combined per angler from a boat was
351 also assumed for anglers from the shore. These annual values were multiplied by the total 17 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
352 estimated number of days spent angling from shore to obtain a total estimated weight of all
353 species of fish caught per year from shore.
354 Total annual catch weights for sea angling from shore were then disaggregated into
355 species categories based on Scottish angling diversity data (Donnelly, 2009). Scottish data
356 were utilised based on the assumption that the diversity of species caught through angling in
357 Ireland is similar to that in Scotland. The Scottish data were from a national survey where
358 individuals were asked which species they typically fished for. For the purposes of this s 359 reconstruction, only the species that were mentioned by at least 25% of the respondents were t n i
r 360 considered, again excluding elasmobranches (other than rays and skates), and conger eel. The P
e 361 percentage of total respondents that mentioned each species was recorded and these r
P 362 percentage values were used as numerical values, thus approximating the relative catch
363 frequency of each species. These values were converted into proportions of the sum of
364 numerical values for all species mentioned (Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic cod, white pollack,
365 saithe, flatfish, rays and skates, whiting, haddock and European seabass). These proportional
366 values were used to disaggregate the total annual catch weights for all years. In the absence
367 of data suggesting otherwise, it was assumed that the species composition of total shore-
368 based angling catch was consistent throughout the entire time series.
369 Based on anecdotal quantitative information (W. Roche, pers. comm., IFI; A. Hayden,
370 pers. comm., www.anirishanglersworld.com), it was assumed that in 2010, fishers mostly
371 practiced catch and release, whereas during the 1950s, recreational catches were mostly
372 retained. Thus, linear interpolation was used to calculate the final quantities of recreational
373 catches retained from 1950 to 2010 through both boat-based and shore-based angling
374 activities, assuming a 90% retention rate in 1950 and a 10% retention rate in 2010. Lastly,
375 annual retained catch quantities for both boat-based and shore-based angling activities were
18 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
376 combined, creating a final dataset of estimated retained catch quantities from all angling
377 activities in Ireland from 1950 to 2010.
378
379 Basking sharks
380 Landing records from a localised coastal basking shark fishery on Achill Island, Co. Mayo
381 which had previously not been included within national landings records were added for the
382 years 1950 to 1975 (Kunzlik, 1988). These data were not extrapolated beyond these years as
383 it was known that this fishery closed in 1975 due to a diminished local population of sharks. s t n 384 i r
P 385 Discards e r 386 Estimates of the quantity of catch discarded annually by Irish commercial fishing vessels P
387 were calculated primarily through data provided in the recently published ‘Atlas of Demersal
388 Discarding’, produced by the Irish Marine Institute (Marine Institute, 2011b). This Atlas
389 included discarding rates for the ten most commercially important demersal species by
390 weight and also discarded quantities of the ten most highly discarded non-commercial species
391 by weight. In addition, discarding estimates for a number of pelagic and shellfish species
392 were derived from other national sources and were included in the reconstruction. Discard
393 quantities for the Irish fleet were only estimated for the stocks for which stock-specific
394 discarding data were available, listed in Table 3, and are thus likely a minimal estimate of
395 total discarding.
396
397 Estimated discards from Irish demersal fisheries
398 Commercially targeted demersal stocks
399 Discard estimates for each commercially fished demersal stock listed in Table 3, both within
400 and outside the Irish EEZ, were calculated by applying the stock-specific ‘discard’ rates 19 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
401 recorded for the combined 2003-2009 time period in the ‘Atlas of Demersal Discarding’
402 produced by the Irish Marine Institute (Marine Institute, 2011b) to all baseline and
403 reconstructed data, excluding recreational catch. Discards for each stock for the years prior to
404 the introduction of stock-specific total allowable catch (TAC) regulations have been
405 estimated by applying 50% of the ‘discard’ rates from the combined 2003-2009 time period.
406 This reduction was made to represent the fact that discarding practices existed prior to the
407 introduction of catch restrictions (see e.g., Roberts, 2007), but TAC regulations likely
408 increased the frequency and volume of discarding. s t n 409 i r
P 410 Non-Commercially targeted stocks caught as by-catch by demersal fisheries e r 411 For stocks not targeted by Irish demersal fisheries where recorded discarding rates were P
412 100% (i.e., none was retained), total ‘discard’ quantities were obtained for all seven years
413 (2003-2009) combined (as opposed to the ‘discard’ rates given for commercially targeted
414 stocks) (Marine Institute, 2011b). These quantities were apportioned to within EEZ and
415 outside the EEZ following the procedure outlined in the section entitled ‘Separation of
416 reconstructed catch by sector’, utilizing discard sampling maps published by the Irish
417 Marine Institute (Figs. 3.13-3.22; Marine Institute, 2011b). These maps indicate the locations
418 of observed discarding of recorded non-commercially targeted species from discard sampling
419 trips carried out by the Marine Institute from 1995 to 2009. Discards were disaggregated into
420 annual quantities within the seven year time period in proportion to annual total estimated
421 landings of all marine species. Total ‘discard’ quantities for all seven years combined were
422 then converted into ‘discard’ rates for each recorded non-commercial species, relative to the
423 total estimated landings of all marine species for the same seven year time period. Discard
424 rates for 1950 were assumed to be 50% of the discard rates for the combined years 2003 to
425 2009, and rates were interpolated between 1950 and 2003. This trend therefore assumes that 20 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
426 discarding rates have gradually increased over the past fifty years (Marine Institute, 2009;
427 Marine Institute, 2011a). Discard rates for 1950 to 2003 were then applied to the total catch
428 volumes of all marine species by Irish vessels caught both within and outside the Irish EEZ to
429 obtain discard estimates for each stock. Discard rates for 2010 were assumed to be the same
430 as the discard rates for the combined years 2003 to 2009.
431
Table 3 Stocks and time periods for which discard quantities have been estimated.
Time Common name Scientific name Fleet Data source period s t Argentines Argentina Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.21 (Marine Institute 2011b) n i Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus Pelagic 1950-2010 Table 9.4.2.5 (Marine Institute 2011b) r Atlantic cod Gadus morhua Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.8 (Marine Institute 2011b) P Tables 5.4.16.2 & 5.4.17.2 (Marine e Atlantic herring Clupea harengus Pelagic 1988-1997 r Institute 2011b) Atl. horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.19 (Marine Institute 2011b) P
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.16 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Boarfish Capros aper Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.20 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Common dab Limanda limanda Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.15 (Marine Institute 2011b)
European hake Merluccius merluccius Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.6 (Marine Institute 2011b)
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.9 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Greater forkbeard Phycis blennoides Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.17 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.14 (Marine Institute 2011b) Melanogrammus Haddock Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.3 (Marine Institute 2011b) aeglefinus Lesser spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.13 (Marine Institute 2011b) Hippoglossoides Long rough dab Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.22 (Marine Institute 2011b) platessoides Lepidorhombus Megrim Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.5 (Marine Institute 2011b) whiffiagonis Monkfish Lophius Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.7 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Nephrops Nephrops norvegicus Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.12 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Poor cod Trisopterus minutus Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.18 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Razor clam Euheterodonta Shellfish 2001-2010 Kelleher et al. 2005
Saithe Pollachius virens Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.10 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Scallop Pecten maximus Shellfish 1950-2010 Kelleher et al. 2005
White Pollack Pollachius pollachius Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.10 (Marine Institute 2011b)
Whiting Merlangius merlanngus Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.4 (Marine Institute 2011b) Glyptocephalus Witch Demersal 1950-2010 Table 3.11 (Marine Institute 2011b) cynoglossus 432
21 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
433 Pelagic discarding estimates
434 Discard estimates for herring and mackerel stocks caught through targeted pelagic fisheries
435 by Irish vessels were calculated through the use of ICES stock assessment report data
436 contained within the Irish Marine Institute’s ‘Stockbook’ (Marine Institute, 2011a). The
437 proportion of the total discards reported for each stock by ICES, but unallocated to any
438 particular fishing fleet was allocated to the Irish fleet in proportion to Ireland’s share of the
439 total reported landings for that stock (Marine Institute, 2011a). Thus, in the absence of
440 publically available country-specific information on discarding, we had to assume the same s t n 441 discarding behaviour for all fleet nationalities. Discard quantities of mackerel for the years i r
P 442 prior to the introduction of stock-specific total allowable catch (TAC) regulations (1987) e r 443 have been estimated by applying 50% of the average ‘discard’ rates from the combined time P
444 period 1988-2010 (Marine Institute, 2011a). Estimates for herring stocks were not
445 extrapolated backwards in time to cover years where data was not available as trends within
446 the data were highly inconsistent and relatively small in relation to total catch.
447
448 Shellfish discarding estimates
449 Discard quantities for razor clams (Euheterodonta) and scallops were estimated by applying
450 estimated discarding rates for the year 2001, obtained from Kelleher et al. (2005). This rate
451 was applied to razor clam and scallop catch data from 2001 to 2010 to calculate estimated
452 quantities of discarding for each year during this time period. Razor clam discard estimates
453 were not extrapolated to earlier years of the dataset as there were no recorded razor clam
454 landings prior to this time period and no historical information was found on a pre-existing
455 razor clam fishery. The commercial harvesting of razor clams is currently carried out using
456 relatively modern hydraulic dredging techniques and it is likely that if razor clams were
457 harvested in earlier years a much smaller quantity was gathered using less intensive methods 22 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
458 of extraction. Estimated discard quantities of scallops from 1950 were calculated using 50%
459 of the discarding rate for 2001 and discarding rates from 1951 to 2000 were calculated
460 through linear interpolation.
461
462 Separation of reconstructed catch by sector
463 In an attempt at allocating the final reconstructed catch data to the appropriate sectors from
464 which fish were caught, total reconstructed catch quantities for each species and fishing area
465 were separated into catches by the ‘artisanal’ (small-scale) fishing sector, the ‘industrial’ s t
n 466 (large-scale) fishing sector, and the ‘recreational’ (sea angling) fishing sector. All recreational i r
P 467 catch quantities were entirely reconstructed and the approach taken has been outlined in the e r 468 section entitled ‘Retained recreational catch’. All remaining catch data including both P 469 reported landings and reconstructed catch were allocated as landings by the artisanal or
470 industrial fishing sector based on comparisons with landings data obtained from the Irish
471 Marine Institute for the years 2003-2010 (M. Clarke, pers. comm., Marine Institute). This
472 dataset contained information on the size of the fishing boats (‘under ten meters’, or ‘ten
473 meters or over’) that had caught all reported landing quantities, recorded by species and by
474 port of landing. For the purposes of this catch reconstruction, we interpreted that catches
475 made by vessels ‘under ten meters’ and within the Irish EEZ were made by the small-scale or
476 artisanal fishing sector. In addition, catches made by vessels ‘ten meters or over’ or outside
477 the Irish EEZ were made by the large-scale or industrial fishing sector.
478 Species that were recorded as being caught entirely by only one sector were assigned
479 as being caught by this same sector throughout the entire reconstructed dataset. For species
480 that were recorded as being caught partially by the artisanal sector and partially by the
481 industrial sector, proportional values were calculated for each year from 2003 to 2010,
23 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
482 representing the proportion of the total Irish catch of each species from each sector for each
483 of these years.
484 For years prior to 2003, the proportion of artisanal vessels catching each species of
485 fish was considered 20% higher in 1950 than in 2003, so the proportional value for 1950 was
486 calculated as the average proportion of catch caught by artisanal vessels in the first three
487 years of the Marine Institute dataset (2003-2005), plus 0.2. Proportional values were then
488 interpolated between 1950 and 2003. These actions were taken following the assumptions
489 that generally, there were smaller vessels in operation earlier in the time series and that s t n 490 throughout the time series, vessels gradually became larger. In cases where the fishery only i r
P 491 developed late in the time series, a constant division between artisanal and industrial vessels e r 492 was assumed throughout. For species that were not specifically included within the Marine P
493 Institute dataset, assumptions were made based on similarities with other species and/or on
494 information obtained online from FishBase (www.fishbase.org).
495 These proportions were then applied to the reconstructed data (the sum of the total
496 landings, IUU and discards for all ICES fishing areas from each year) to calculate the total
497 quantity of catch that originated from each sector for each of these years. The total artisanal
498 catch for each species and each year was quantified only within the catch from the ICES
499 areas bordering on Irish land (ICES areas Via, VIIb, VIIg, VIIj and ICES area (not
500 specified)). This action was taken as it was assumed that it is most likely that artisanal
501 (smaller) vessels catch fish in areas closer to the shore and not in the high seas, or in foreign
502 waters. The Marine Institute dataset supports this assumption as all landings made at foreign
503 ports were caught only by vessels ‘ten meters or over’. Lastly, all catches made by Irish
504 vessels outside of the Irish EEZ were recorded as being caught by the industrial sector as it
505 was decided that having been caught within the Irish EEZ was an appropriate additional
506 classification requirement for catches made by the artisanal sector. 24 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
507 RESULTS
508
509 Estimated total Irish removals from all ICES fishing areas within the Northeast Atlantic from
510 1950 to 2010 as calculated here amounted to approximately 10.96 million tonnes. This is
511 19.3% higher than the landings of 9.19 million tonnes that are reported in the ICES ‘Official
512 Catch Statistics’ database.
513
514 Catches made within the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) s t n 515 Our catch reconstruction estimated total Irish catches of approximately 8.69 million tonnes i r
P 516 from within the Irish EEZ between 1950 and 2010, a quantity that is 20.9% higher than the e r 517 7.19 million tonnes that were assigned to EEZ waters from the ICES ‘Official Catch P
518 Statistics’ database (Figure 2a). Throughout the entire time series, total catches ranged from
519 being 128% higher than reported landings in 1952, to being just under 10% higher than
520 reported landings during the early 1980s. From 2000 to 2010, reconstructed total catches
521 were on average 19.7% higher than reported landings.
522 Basking shark landings represented the majority of the reconstructed unreported catch
523 additions at the beginning of the time series (1950s), representing 38.1% of total catches and
524 77% of reconstructed additions to the dataset in 1952. Towards the end of the time series,
525 quantities of both discards and unreported catches increased along with their relative
526 contribution to total annual catches (Figure 2b). From 1990 to 2010, discards and unreported
527 catches represented on average 14.8% and 3.6%, respectively, of the total reconstructed
528 catches. For the entire time period from 1950 to 2010, reconstructed discards and unreported
529 catches represented 12.7% and 2.8%, respectively, of the total reconstructed catches.
530 Reconstructed recreational catch was relatively low and the proportional contribution of this
531 component decreased over time due to increasing catch-and-release behaviour by recreational 25 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
532 fishers. For the entire time period, estimated recreational catches accounted for just under 40
533 000 tonnes and comprised 0.5% of the total reconstructed catches.
534 Estimated unreported catches of pelagic species such as Atlantic herring, Atlantic
535 horse mackerel and Atlantic mackerel (in addition to basking shark during earlier years)
536 contributed the most to the unreported component of total reconstructed additions (Figure
537 2c). Estimated quantities of demersal species such as whiting, haddock and European hake,
538 contributed the most significantly to total estimated discards (Figure 2d). Lastly, although the
539 artisanal component of the total reconstructed catch was dominant at the very begining of the s t n 540 time series in the early 1950s, 86.7% of total catches from 1950 to 2010 were made by the i r
P 541 industrial sector (Figure 3). e r 542 P
26 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 Total reconstructed catch 3.5
Unallocated
) ) 5 5 3.0 3.0 Discards
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 Catch(t x 10 Catch(t x 10 Basking
s Recreational
t ICES shark 1.0 1.0 ICES + adjustments n i
0.5 r 0.5
0.0 P 0.0 e
1950 1960 1970r 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
543 a. P b.
2.0 7.0 1.8 Other 6.0
1.6
5.0 )
) 1.4
4 4 1.2 Atlantic horse Atlantic 4.0 mackerel Haddock 1.0 mackerel 3.0 0.8
Basking Catch(t x 10 Catch(t x 10 Atlantic Other 0.6 shark 2.0 herring European 0.4 hake 1.0 0.2 Whiting 0.0 0.0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 544 c. d.
545 Figure 2 Irish fisheries removals from within the Irish EEZ for the period 1950-2010; (a) total reconstructed removals (solid line) as well as landings reported 546 within the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ dataset available through ICES (dashed line); (b) total reconstructed removals by category, inclusing ICES + source 547 adjustments, basking shark landings, ‘unallocated’ landing estimates as reported by ICES, discards and retained recreational catch; (c) total unreported 548 landings by taxon; and (d) total discards by taxon. 27
PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1 100%
90% Recreational 80% 70% 60% Industrial 50% 40% 30% 20%
Percentage Percentage of catchtotal(%) 10% Artisanal 0% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 549
550 Figure 3 Total Irish reconstructed fisheries removals within the Northeast Atlantic for the period 1950- s
t 551 2010 by sector from within the Irish EEZ.
n 552 i r
P 553 Catches outside the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) e r 554 An estimated 2.27 million tonnes was removed by Irish fishing vessels fishing within the P 555 Northeast Atlantic outside the Irish EEZ from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 4a). This is 13.4% higher
556 than the 2 million tonnes that were assigned to non-EEZ waters from the ICES ‘Official
557 Catch Statistics’ database (Figure 4a). From 1950 to 2010, reconstructed total catches were
558 on average 15.1% higher than reported landings, which was lower than the contribution
559 calculated for catches made within the Irish EEZ, which incorporated both basking shark
560 landings and recreational catch.
561 Towards the end of the time series, discards and unreported catches increased, along
562 with their relative contribution to total annual catch quantities (Figure 4b). From 1990 to
563 2010, discards and unreported catches represented on average 9.1% and 3.4%, respectively,
564 of the reconstructed total catches.
565 Estimated catches of pelagic species such as Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic horse
566 mackerel and Atlantic herring contributed the most to the unreported component (Figure 4c).
567 Estimated catches of demersal species such as whiting, European plaice and haddock
568 contributed the most to total discards (Figure 4d).
28 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 Unallocated
8.0 Total reconstructed catch 8.0
Discards
)
) 7.0 7.0
4 4 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
ICES Catch(t x 10 Catch(t x 10 3.0 3.0 s
t ICES + adjustments 2.0 2.0 n i
1.0 r 1.0
0.0 P 0.0 e
1950 1960r 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
569 a. P b.
7.0 1.0 0.9 6.0
0.8 Other
5.0 )
) 0.7
3 4 0.6 4.0 Other Atlantic horse European 0.5 mackerel plaice 3.0 0.4
Atlantic Catch(t x 10 Catch(t x 10 2.0 herring 0.3 Haddock 0.2 1.0 Atlantic mackerel 0.1 Whiting 0.0 0.0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 570 c. d.
571 Figure 4 Irish fisheries removals from outside the Irish EEZ but within the Northeast Atlantic for the period 1950-2010; (a) total reconstructed removals (solid 572 line) as well as landings reported within the ‘Official Catch Statistics’ dataset available through ICES (dashed line); (b) total reconstructed removals by 573 category, inclusing ICES + source adjustments, basking shark landings, ‘unallocated’ landing estimates as reported by ICES, discards and retained 574 recreational catch; (c) total unreported landings by taxon; and (d) total discards by taxon. 29
PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1 575 DISCUSSION
576
577 Our reconstruction suggests total Irish catches from 1950 to 2010 were approximately 19.3%
578 higher than landings officially reported by ICES for Ireland from the Northeast Atlantic.
579 Total Irish catches were found to be 20.9% higher in Ireland’s EEZ than reported landings
580 suggest (Figure 2a). Our reconstruction integrated a decision-making process which favoured
581 the use of lowest quantity or rates being chosen for deriving data anchor points (Rossing et
582 al., 2010). Thus, we consider the total catches estimated here to be conservative and a s t n 583 minimal estimate. Actual total catches for this time period are thus likely even higher than i r
P 584 estimated here (Zeller et al., 2011). e r 585 ICES does currently consider some estimates of discarded and unreported removals P
586 when conducting individual stock assessments (Marine Institute, 2011a). However, what is
587 lacking is a comprehensive and transparent dataset of discarding and ‘unallocated’ catches by
588 country, year, area and species, incorporating estimates of all catch components for all marine
589 species that face human-induced mortality directly or indirectly through fishing activities.
590 The European public, and the global community, has the right to know exactly how much of
591 these publically owned resources are caught (and discarded) by which country and where.
592 The need for such transparent and comprehensive public accounting, in the face of ongoing
593 overfishing problems in EU waters (Froese & Proelß, 2010; EC, 2011; Villasante et al.,
594 2011), points to the need for 100% observer coverage in all commercial fishing activities
595 (Zeller et al., 2011), and regular survey based estimation of recreational fisheries catches
596 (Zeller et al., 2007, 2008). Complete observer coverage is readily achievable in any fishery
597 that is sustainable and not overcapitalized, as evidenced by the Canadian West Coast
598 groundfish fishery (Branch et al., 2006). Overcapitalized fisheries, such as many EU fleets
30 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
599 will require often substantial reductions in fleet capacity before any notion of sustainability
600 can be achieved (Pauly et al., 2002).
601 Discarding was identified as the largest contributor to unreported fisheries catches
602 (Figures 2b and 4b). This is disconcerting, as unlike other forms of unreported catches (such
603 as some recreational catches), discarding is nothing more than a wasteful treatment of marine
604 life. Although discards are consumed by the marine food web after they are thrown back
605 (even if ultimately only by the bacterial food-web), this role as a dead and decaying food
606 source has artificially been imposed as a result of fishing activities. In large quantities, s t n 607 discarding may have unpredictable repercussions on ecosystem dynamics (Goñi, 1998; i r
P 608 Jennings & Kaiser, 1998). e r 609 The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) incorporates the use of single-stock P
610 quotas, which have been widely recognised as perpetuating and even increasing the
611 discarding problem within European fisheries. The CFP’s quota system incentivises
612 discarding behaviour through placing limits only on total ‘landings’ of target stocks, rather
613 than actual ‘catches’ of all marine species (EC, 2009b; Khalilian et al., 2010; EC, 2011).
614 Change is potentially on the horizon however, as the European Council of Fisheries Ministers
615 recently accepted a proposal to phase out the practice of discarding commercially targeted
616 species (EU, 2012). Such a practise of discard banning, however, requires extremely strict
617 and tight monitoring and enforcement, something only achievable with 100% observer
618 coverage of all fleets (Zeller et al., 2011). Complete observer coverage is readily achievable
619 in fisheries that have addressed over-capacity problems and are fishing sustainably, as
620 evidenced by demersal fisheries off the west coast of Canada (Branch, 2006, Branch et al.,
621 2006). This policy change could potentially bring tremendous improvements to the quality of
622 collected catch records. In the interim, efforts to increase the accessibility of fisheries data
623 relating to discards should be encouraged. Ireland has taken a step towards improving the 31 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
624 transparency of the fishing industry by publically releasing their report on discarding within
625 the Irish demersal fishing fleet which has been utilised as a data source for this reconstruction
626 (Marine Institute, 2011b). Such an approach is highly commendable.
627 Cumulative ‘unallocated’ (i.e., unreported) catch, estimated from data reported
628 through ICES stock assessment working groups, was the second highest contributor to this
629 reconstruction of total Irish fisheries catches (Figures 2b and 4b). Considering evidence
630 obtained through various Irish media reports however, we suspect that illegal, unreported and
631 unregulated (IUU) landings, which should be included in this category of ‘unallocated’ catch, s t n 632 could potentially increase the catch figures estimated through the present reconstruction i r
P 633 substantially (Donegal Times, 2004; Fishupdate.com, 2006; Irish Examiner, 2006; The Times e r 634 Online (UK), 2006a; The Times Online (UK), 2006b; The Times Online (UK), 2006c). P
635 Unfortunately, due to insufficient supporting evidence and uncertainties in the reliability of
636 associated original information sources and reported values, we decided to remain
637 conservative. Thus, we refrained from integrating media-reported IUU catch quantities into
638 the reconstruction. However, once suspected IUU activities become known, it should be the
639 responsibility of the authorities processing these charges to report this information publically
640 through the appropriate channels so that additional catch quantities can be incorporated into
641 official catch records. This should be an inherent part of transparency of governance and
642 public resource accounting.
643 Although the reconstruction presented here only provides an estimate of total catches
644 for the time period 1950 to 2010, this exercise has clearly identified sectors where the quality
645 and coverage of Irish fisheries data should be improved. Inshore catches made by vessels less
646 than ten meters in length are not extracted from logbook records but rather are estimated
647 through the consideration of sales note data. The Irish Department of Defence has reported
648 that in recent years, the inshore sector has grown substantially with many vessels ten meters 32 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
649 or more in length often decommissioned in favour of smaller vessels (Department of Defence
650 and Defence Forces, 2011). Effort displacement after the closure of the salmon drift net
651 fishery in 2007, and the rising costs of fuel have been mentioned as factors contributing to
652 this recent capacity shift (Marine Institute, 2006). The Department of Defence has expressed
653 concerns about this trend, as these smaller vessels are being operated by experienced fishers,
654 now fishing under weaker regulations with less monitoring requirements (Department of
655 Defence and Defence Forces, 2011). Thus, the current ten meter logbook exemption rule
656 needs changing, and all commercial fishing operation will require the same fisheries s t n 657 regulations, reporting and monitoring requirements as other commercial fisheries. i r
P 658 Data on retained recreational catch were the most difficult to obtain. Efforts should be e r 659 applied to increase the accountability of the recreational fishing sector through, for example, P
660 a survey-based monitoring scheme. The complete absence of quantitative data on this sector
661 has left a gap in our understanding of recreational fisheries in Ireland.
662
663
664 CONCLUSIONS
665
666 After completing this catch reconstruction, it is noted that the dataset which has been created
667 only accounts for catches made by Irish fishing vessels, neglecting foreign fishing activities
668 within the Irish EEZ. A complete catch reconstruction of all catches in the Irish EEZ, and
669 which would represent total fishing activity within this area would need to incorporate
670 catches of foreign vessels within Irish waters. Such a spatial catch accounting is undertaken
671 by the Sea Around Us Project (www.seaaroundus.org), which will be using the present data
672 as one of their input datasets. The reconstructed Irish catch dataset described here represents
33 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
673 a first attempt at estimating total Irish removals from the Northeast Atlantic and the Irish
674 EEZ.
675
676 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
677
678 The authors would like to thank Oliver Tully, Edward Fahy, Maurice Clarke and Stefano
679 Mariani for information and/or advice provided throughout the reconstruction process. In
680 addition, Ashley Hayden, Willie Roche and Johnny Woodlock are to be thanked for s t n 681 providing information and/or guidance that was useful for the recreational component of this i r
P 682 project. The contributions of Ciaran Kelly and Sarah Harper in providing comments on e r 683 earlier drafts of the manuscript are appreciated. Lastly, many thanks to Daniel Pauly and P
684 others within UBC’s Fisheries Centre for their support and insightful discussions throughout
685 the duration of this project. This is a contribution of the Sea Around Us project, a scientific
686 collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trust.
687
688
689 REFERENCES
690
691 Borges L, Rogan E, Officer R. 2005. Discarding by the demersal fishery in the waters
692 around Ireland. Fisheries Research 76: 1-13.
693
694 Branch T. 2006. Discards and revenues in multispecies groundfish trawl fisheries managed
695 by trip limits on the U.S. West Coast and by ITQs in British Columbia. Bulletin of
696 Marine Science 78(3): 669-690.
697 34 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
698 Branch T, Rutherford K, Hilborn R. 2006. Replacing trip limits with individual
699 transferable quotas: implications for discarding. Marine Policy 30: 281-292.
700
701 Connolly N, Buchanan C, O’Connell M, Cronin M, O’Mahony C, Sealy H, Kay D,
702 Buckley S. 2001. Assessment of Human Activity in the Coastal Zone: a research
703 project linking Ireland and Wales. Maritime Ireland/Wales INTERREG Report NO.9.
704 Measure 1.3: Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment and Marine
705 Emergency Planning, 136 p. s t n 706 i r
P 707 CSO (Central Statistics Office). 2012. Population Estimates by Sex, Age Group and Year e r 708 (1950-2011). Statistical Product – Population Estimates. Central Statistics Office, P
709 Ireland. Available at
710 http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/database/eirestat/Population%20Estimates/Population
711 %20Estimates_statbank.asp (accessed 29 July 2012).
712
713 Cummins V, Coughlan S, McClean O, Connolly N, Mercer J, Burnell G. 2002. An
714 assessment of the potential for the sustainable development of the edible periwinkle,
715 Littorina littorea, industry in Ireland. Coastal and Marine Resources Centre,
716 Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Ireland, 82 p.
717
718 de Courcy Ireland J. 1981. Ireland’s Sea Fisheries: a History. The Glendale Press, Dublin.
719
720 Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. 2011. Dept of Defence submission CFP
721 Dec 11. Common fisheries policy review, submissions received on CFP proposals
722 2011. FishingNET, the Irish Government’s commercial sea fishing network portal, 5 35 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
723 p. Available at
724 http://www.fishingnet.ie/media/fishingnet/content/commonfisheriespolicyreview/sub
725 missionsreceivedoncfpproposals2011/Dept_of_Defence_submisssion_CFP_dec_11.p
726 df (accessed 29 July 2012).
727
728 Donegal Times. 2004. Fraud squad target Killybegs, 24 November 2004. Available at
729 http://www.donegaltimes.com/2004/11_2/other.html (accessed 29 July 2012).
730 s t n 731 Donnelley RR. 2009. Technical Report: Economic Impact of Recreational Sea Angling in i r
P 732 Scotland. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 263 p. e r 733 P
734 EC (European Commission). 2009a. The Common Fisheries Policy - a user‟s guide. Office
735 for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
736
737 EC (European Commission). 2009b. Green Paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
738 Com (2009) 163 final. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
739
740 EC (European Commission). 2011. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
741 and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy. Com (2011) 425 final.
742 Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
743
744 EU (European Union). 2011. Press Release - 3174th Agriculture and Fisheries Council
745 meeting - Luxembourg, 12 June 2012. EN 1111/12 Presse 258 PR CO 36. Council of
746 the European Union, Brussels, 9 p. Available at
36 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
747 www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/130884.pdf
748 (accessed 29 July 2012).
749
750 Fahy E, Carroll J, O’Toole M, Barry C, Hother-Parkes L. 2004. Fishery-associated
751 changes in the whelk Buccinum undatum stock in the Southwest Irish Sea, 1995-2003.
752 Irish Fisheries Investigations Number 15. Fisheries Science Services, Marine Institute,
753 Dublin, Ireland, 32 p.
754 s t n 755 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. Coordinating i r
P 756 Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP) Handbook of Fishery Statistical e r 757 Standards. Section I: Conversion factors from landed to nominal weight. FAO, P
758 Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome. Available at
759 http://www.fao.org/fishery/cwp/handbook/I/en (accessed 29 July 2012).
760
761 Fishupdate.com. 2006. Moves to tackle illegal mackerel landings by the Irish fleet
762 into Scotland are being tackled. Available at http://www.illegal-
763 fishing.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=862&approach_id=21 (accessed
764 29 July 2012).
765
766 Froese R, Proelß A. 2010. Rebuilding fish stocks no later than 2015: will Europe meet
767 the deadline? Fish and Fisheries 11: 194-202.
768
769 Goñi R. 1998. Ecosystem effects of marine fisheries: an overview. Ocean and Coastal
770 Management 40(1): 37-64.
771 37 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
772 ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). 2011. ICES Catch Statistics
773 1950-2010. Eurostat/ICES database on catch statistics, ICES 2011, Copenhagen.
774 Available at http://www.ices.dk/fish/CATCHSTATISTICS.asp (accessed 15 July
775 2012).
776
777 ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). 2012. The Data Centre:
778 Submitting Data. ICES, Copenhagen. Available at
779 http://www.ices.dk/datacentre/Submissions/index.aspx?t=1 (accessed 29 July 2012). s t n 780 i r
P 781 Irish Examiner. 2006. Gallagher future – fishing industry needs reform, 14 February, 2006. e r 782 Available at http://www.illegal- P
783 fishing.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=41&approach_id=21 (accessed 29
784 July 2012).
785
786 ISFC (Irish Specimen Fish Committee). 2012. List of specimen weights for marine fish
787 species. ISFC, Ireland. Available at http://www.irish-trophy-
788 fish.com/trophies/marine.htm (accessed 29 July 2012).
789
790 Jennings S, Kaiser MJ. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in
791 Marine Biology 34: 201-212.
792
793 Jennings S, Greenstreet SPR, Hill L, Piet GJ, Pinnegar JK, Warr KJ. 2002.
794 Long-term trends in the trophic structure of the North Sea fish community: evidence
795 from stable-isotope analysis, size-spectra and community metrics. Marine Biology
796 141: 1085-1097. 38 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
797
798 Kelleher K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries
799 Technical Paper 470. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome.
800
801 Khalilian S, Froese R, Proelss A, Requate T. 2010. Designed for failure: a critique
802 of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. Marine Policy 34(6): 1178-
803 1182.
804 s t n 805 Kunzlik PA. 1988. The Basking Shark. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for i r
P 806 Scotland. Scottish Fisheries Information Pamphlet No. 14. e r 807 P
808 Marine Institute. 2004. A National Survey of Water-Based Leisure Activities in Ireland 2003.
809 Marine Institute, Co. Galway, Ireland, 62 p.
810
811 Marine Institute. 2006. The Stock Book: Annual Review of Fish Stocks in 2006 with
812 Management Advice for 2007. Marine Institute Fisheries Science Services, Co.
813 Galway, Ireland, 425 p.
814
815 Marine Institute. 2007. The Stock Book: Annual Review of Fish Stocks in 2007 with
816 Management Advice for 2008. Marine Institute Fisheries Science Services, Co.
817 Galway, Ireland, 424 p.
818
819 Marine Institute. 2009. Atlas of the Commercial Fisheries around Ireland: 2009 review of
820 the fisheries of relevance around Ireland. Marine Institute Fisheries Science Services,
821 Co. Galway, Ireland, 64 p. 39 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
822
823 Marine Institute. 2011a. The Stock Book: Annual Review of Fish Stocks in 2011 with
824 Management Advice for 2012. Marine Institute Fisheries Science Services, Co.
825 Galway, Ireland, 502 p.
826
827 Marine Institute. 2011b. Atlas of Demersal Discarding: Scientific Observations and Potential
828 Solutions. Marine Institute Fisheries Science Services, Co. Galway, Ireland, 93 p.
829 s t n 830 Marine Institute. 2011c. Shellfish Stocks and Fisheries Review, December, 2011. Shellfish i r
P 831 stocks and fisheries review 2011: an assessment of selected stocks. The Marine e r 832 Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Ireland, 67 p. P
833
834 Marine Institute. 2012. The Stock Book: Annual 2012 Review of Fish Stocks with
835 Management Advice for 2013. Marine Institute Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory
836 Services, Co. Galway, Ireland, 606 p.
837
838 McArthur IS. 1959. Report to the Government of Ireland on the Development of the Sea
839 Fisheries Industries. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.
840
841 Miller D, Clarke M, Mariani S. 2012. Mismatch between fish landings and market
842 trends: A western European case study. Fisheries Research 121: 104-114.
843
844 Molloy J. 2004. The Irish Mackerel Fishery and the Making of an Industry. Killybegs
845 Fishermens Organisation Ltd. and the Marine Institute, Killarney Printing Works,
846 Ireland. 40 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
847
848 Österblom H, Sissenwine M, Symes D, Kadin M, Daw T, Folke C. 2011.
849 Incentives, social-ecological feedbacks and European fisheries. Marine Policy 35:
850 568-574.
851
852 Pauly D. 1998. Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation
853 Bulletin 11: 4-10.
854 s t n 855 Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R, Torres Jr. F. 1998. Fishing down i r
P 856 marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863. e r 857 P
858 Pauly D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila UR, Walters CJ, Watson R, Zeller
859 D. 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689-695.
860
861 Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, Bakun A, Bonfil R, Conover DO, Dayton P,
862 Doukakis P, Fluharty D, Heneman B, Houde ED, Link J, Livingston PA, Mangel M,
863 McAllister MK, Pope J, Sainsbury KJ. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery management.
864 Science 305: 346-347.
865
866 Pinnegar JK, Polunin NVV, Badalamenti F. 2003. Long-term changes in the trophic
867 level of western Mediterranean fishery and aquaculture landings. Canadian Journal
868 of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60(2): 222-235.
869
870 Pooley SG. 1993. Hawaii’s marine fisheries: some history, long-term trends, and recent
871 developments. Marine Fisheries Review 55(2): 7-19. 41 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
872
873 Roberts C. 2007. Unnatural history of the sea. Island Press/Shearwater Books,
874 Washington D.C. XVII + 435 p.
875
876 Rossing P, Booth S, Zeller D. (Eds.). 2010. Total marine fisheries extractions by
877 country in the Baltic Sea: 1950-present. Fisheries Centre Research Report 18(1),
878 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
879 s t n 880 The Times Online (UK). 2006a. 140m EU fine over illegal fish, 5 February 2006. Available i r
P 881 at http://www.illegal- e r 882 fishing.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=37&approach_id=21 (accessed 29 P
883 July 2012).
884
885 The Times Online (UK). 2006b. A Fishy business, 12 February 2006. Available at
886 http://www.illegal-
887 fishing.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=58&approach_id=21 (accessed 29
888 July 2012).
889
890 The Times Online (UK). 2006c. Illegal fish haul in Rossaveal, 12 February 2006.
891 Available at http://www.illegal-
892 fishing.info/item_single.php?item=news&item_id=59&approach_id=21 (accessed 29
893 July 2012).
894
895 Villasante S, do Carme García-Negro M, González-Laxe F, Rodríguez GR. 2011.
42 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
896 Overfishing and the Common Fisheries Policy: (un)successful results from TAC
897 regulation? Fish and Fisheries 12: 34-50.
898
899 Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P, Pauly D. 2007. Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries
900 catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fisheries
901 Bulletin 105: 266-277.
902
903 Zeller D, Darcy M, Booth S, Lowe MK, Martell SJ. 2008. What about recreational s t n 904 catch? Potential impact on stock assessment for Hawaii’s bottomfish fisheries. i r
P 905 Fisheries Research 91:88-97. e r 906 P
907 Zeller D, Cheung WWL, Close C, Pauly D. 2009. Trends in global marine fisheries
908 – a critical view. In: Wrammer, P., Ackefors, H., Cullberg, M.s. (Eds.), Fisheries,
909 Sustainability and Development. Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and
910 Forestry, Stockholm, pp. 87-107.
911
912 Zeller D, Rossing P, Harper S, Persson L, Booth S, Pauly D. 2011. The Baltic
913 Sea: Estimates of total fisheries removals 1950-2007. Fisheries Research 108: 356-
914 363.
915
43 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
916 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Table 1 Estimated proportions of Irish landings caught within the Irish EEZ in ICES Sub-areas VIa-b; VIIa; VIIc; and VIIg-k.
ICES Assumed proportion Common name Scientific name Sub-area within Irish EEZ Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIa 0.65
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIb 0.01
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIa 0.85
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIc 1.00
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIg 0.90
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIg-k 0.95
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIj 1.00
s Atlantic cod Gadus morhua VIIk 1.00 t Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIa 0.90 n i
r Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIb 1.00
P Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIa 0.40 e Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIc 1.00 r
P Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIg 0.99
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIg-k 1.00
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIj 1.00
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus VIIk 1.00
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIa 0.85
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIb 1.00
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIa 1.00
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIc 1.00
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIg 0.90
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIg-k 0.99
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIj 1.00
Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus VIIk 1.00
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VI and VII 0.85
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIa 0.70
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIb 0.00
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIa 0.95
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIc 1.00
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIg 0.65
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIg-k 0.90
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIj 1.00
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus VIIk 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou Via 0.75
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIb 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIa 1.00
44 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIc 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIg 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIg-k 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIj 1.00
Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou VIIk 1.00
Common sole Solea solea Via 0.60
Common sole Solea solea VIb 0.00
Common sole Solea solea VIIa 0.85
Common sole Solea solea VIIc 1.00
Common sole Solea solea VIIg 0.80
Common sole Solea solea VIIg-k 0.85
Common sole Solea solea VIIj 1.00
s Common sole Solea solea VIIk 1.00 t European hake Merluccius merluccius Via 0.50 n i
r European hake Merluccius merluccius VIb 0.01
P European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIa 0.60 e European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIc 1.00 r European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIg 0.95 P European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIg-k 0.95
European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIj 1.00
European hake Merluccius merluccius VIIk 1.00
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa Via 0.40
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIb 1.00
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIa 0.70
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIc 1.00
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIg 0.85
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIg-k 0.85
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIj 1.00
European plaice Pleuronectes platessa VIIk 1.00
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIa 0.65
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIb 0.01
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIa 0.80
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIc 1.00
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIg 0.90
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIg-k 0.90
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIj 1.00
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus VIIk 1.00
Ling Molva molva VIa 0.75
Ling Molva molva VIb 0.01
Ling Molva molva VIIa 0.80
Ling Molva molva VIIc 1.00
45 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
Ling Molva molva VIIg 0.80
Ling Molva molva VIIg-k 0.85
Ling Molva molva VIIj 1.00
Ling Molva molva VIIk 1.00
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIa 0.30
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIb 0.01
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIa 0.90
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIc 1.00
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIg 0.85
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIg-k 0.85
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIj 1.00
Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VIIk 1.00
s Monkfish Lophius spp. VIa 0.50 t Monkfish Lophius spp. VIb 0.01 n i
r Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIa 0.80
P Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIc 1.00 e Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIg 0.75 r Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIg-k 0.90 P Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIj 1.00
Monkfish Lophius spp. VIIk 1.00
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIa 0.30
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIb 0.01
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIa 0.80
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIc 1.00
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIg 0.55
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIg-k 0.60
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIj 1.00
Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus VIIk 1.00
Rays and skates Batoidea VIa 0.50
Rays and skates Batoidea VIb 0.01
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIa 0.90
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIc 1.00
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIg 0.85
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIg-k 0.90
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIj 1.00
Rays and skates Batoidea VIIk 1.00
Shellfish Assorted species VI and VII 1.00
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIa 1.00
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIb 0.00
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIIa 1.00
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIIc 1.00
46 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIIg 0.85
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIIj 0.90
Tuna Thunnus spp. VIIk 0.99
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIa 0.40
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIb 0.01
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIa 0.75
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIc 1.00
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIg 0.70
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIg-k 0.70
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIj 1.00
Whiting Merlangius merlangus VIIk 1.00
Other coastal Assorted species VIa 1.00
s Other coastal Assorted species VIb 1.00 t Other coastal Assorted species VIIa 0.79 n i
r Other coastal Assorted species VIIc 1.00
P Other coastal Assorted species VIIg 0.80 e Other coastal Assorted species VIIg-k 0.84 r Other coastal Assorted species VIIj 1.00 P Other coastal Assorted species VIIk 1.00
Other deepwater Assorted species VIa 1.00
Other deepwater Assorted species VIb 1.00
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIa 0.79
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIc 1.00
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIg 0.80
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIg-k 0.84
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIj 1.00
Other deepwater Assorted species VIIk 1.00
Other demersal & offshore invertebrates Assorted species VI and VII 0.85
Other demersal & offshore invertebrates Assorted species VIa 0.53
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIb 0.01
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIa 0.79
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIc 1.00
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIg 0.80
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIg-k 0.84
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIj 1.00
Other demersal & offshore invertebrate species Assorted species VIIk 1.00
Other flatfish Assorted species VIa 0.31
Other flatfish Assorted species VIb 1.00
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIa 0.82
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIc 1.00
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIg 0.83
47 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIg-k 0.85
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIj 1.00
Other flatfish Assorted species VIIk 1.00
Other large pelagic Assorted species VI and VII See‘Tuna’a See ‘Herring’, ‘Horse Other small pelagic Assorted species VI and VII Mackerel’ or Blue whiting’a 917
918 a A large number of individual species were included within the ‘Common name’ categories referred to as ‘Other large pelagic’ 919 and ‘Other small pelagic’. For each of these species, inclusion values used for either ‘Tuna’, ‘Herring’, ‘Horse Mackerel’ or ‘Blue 920 whiting’ were applied, based on similarities in life history traits. s t n i r P e r P
48 PeerJ PrePrints | https://peerj.com/preprints/150v1/ | v1 received: 11 Dec 2013, published: 11 Dec 2013, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.150v1